Using MapPoint to compute routes with locations not on the road? - mappoint

We use MapPoint for computing routes, but the problem is that we have locations
that are not on the road like houses backyards and stuff. We work with latitude
and longitude coordinates which may or may not be on the road. This may cause
a lot of problems for us. How does MapPoint handle such routes? I mean what is the road
distance between one house's backyard and another one? Makes no sense, right?
Thanks for any opinions

MapPoint looks for the closest road and then applies a straight line distance to the closest road. This works well for short driveways/etc which are not in the road database.
Note that if the distance is more than a specific amount (I'm not sure the threshold off hand), then MapPoint will report than the point is not on the road network and the route cannot be calculated.
Also it is unclear what the behavior is for your backyard example, if the two backyards are next to each other - it might simply draw a line between the two points.

Related

Calculate angle between three GPS coordinates

perhaps this is a simple question.
I have 3 GPS coordinates (one is the current user location). What I want now is to calculate the angle between the user location and the two GPS coordinates. Imagine the user location in the center of the two other points, the three points can be seen as a triangle. And I want to calculate the angle at the user location.
I hope someone can help me because I have no idea how to do this with spherical coordinates like the GPS coordinates I have.
THX - nekro
For short distances (less than 100km, say) you can safely ignore the spherical nature of the calculation and treat the problem as a 2 cartesian coordinate problem. For large distances the spherical geometry gets pretty gnarly. I could probably figure it out, but I don't want to think that hard right now.
Edit:
All you need to do is to convert both coordinates to KM, and then treat it as a cartesian problem. (At a small scale, you can ignore the curved nature of the "lines" and treat them as normal cartesian grid lines, since the curvature is small enough to ignore at that scale)
The distance per degree of latitude is constant. The distance for a degree of longitude changes based on latitude.
Do a google search on "KM per degree of longitude" and find a link that explains it clearly. Here's one: http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/warmup/aquifer/html/distance.html
You could use thessien polygons and calculate the geometry on those from a strictly GIS perspective. If you have qgis or arcgis this should be fairly simple. These packages offer APIs which might suit your needs.
You're essentially doing two calculations (bearing to (or from) current position to two other positions) and not crosstrack (distance from a great circle line between to other points).
However, both can be found in Ed William's Aviation Formulary which has the most comprehensive collection of formulas for spherical calculations I've found.
You would be looking for "Course between points" which is listed as:
tc1=mod(atan2(sin(lon1-lon2)*cos(lat2),
cos(lat1)*sin(lat2)-sin(lat1)*cos(lat2)*cos(lon1-lon2)), 2*pi)

How to determine which regions, each defined by longitude , latitude and a radius, contain a given location?

I have a large data set of regions , each of which is defined by a longitude, latitude and a given radius. I have a location point with a a latitude and longitude and I need to determine which of the regions contains my point.
Currently I am using brute force : I compute the distance between the target point and each region's center longitude and latitude ; if the distance is less than the radius of the region, I include the region in in my result.
Obviously this solution is not tenable.
Can GeoHash be used to formulate a solution ?
Edit : The business problem is given a set of cell phone with known ranges and a fixed set of available locations owned by a real estate holding, where is the place for a signal repeater. There are other considerations of course besides location and distance. Otherwise someone will have drive around the country with a signal detection kit -- not optimal . Not a homework question. I have Comp Sci background but GIS is new to me and I am willing to learn.
Edit : I will continue using brute force across several ec2 instances. Not the most optimum solution but it works. Thank you all for proposed solutions but unfortunately given the time and knowledge constraints and vagueness of the methodology, I am not going to be able to try them out.
The usual approach is to use a spatial index like quad tree or kd tree.
To this index you add the rectangular bounds of all circles to build up the index.
Uisng the quad tree:
Query the index which objects overlap a quad node at given position. The result will be some circles , these you check as you described.
quad trees don't like the deletion of elements.

Finding the geometric mean of points on a globe

I'm starting a project where I am mapping a set of points on the Earth using google maps. I want to find the point on the globe which is the average (shortest total distance to all points), but I'm unsure how to handle it considering the distance may be shorter going the other way around the earth. (-178 degrees to 178 degrees longitude is only 4 degrees longitude apart, not 356). What is the best way to approach this, either via an api call or from a mathematical perspective?
I highly doubt there is a slick geometric argument giving a closed form expression for the desired point. Nonetheless here's a simple-minded algorithm which gives an answer to within any desired precision:
https://gist.github.com/amitkgupta/5019163
If you want a mathematically more satisfying solution, I recommend asking over at http://math.stackexchange.com, or they don't avail you, escalate it to http://mathoverflow.net.
I can suggest simple and fast solution (but not to exact initial task). Find the center of gravity of points, then there may be 2 situations:
it's located at center of sphere - don't know what to do (if initial points distributed close to each other - this will not happen)
in other case - consider vector with center of mass and center of sphere as finish and start points, find where such vector intersects surface of sphere, that point - is the answer.
So, you'll get point somewhat similar to 'mid-point', but only in cases when surface under consideration is very small (may be all point lay within the same city). But it is also has nothing to do with minimal average distances from result to initial points.

area calculation using lat/long in UIMapview

I am trying to find area of MKPolygonView object added to MapView. Apple documentation has method distanceFromLocation: to find distance between edges of MKPolygonView object. But I could not find anything to calculate area of the overlay.
Does Apple have any documented method for finding area?
Concerning the comments on the question post, the Earth is not a perfect sphere either. In fact, it's not a perfect anything, so "correct" answers aren't possible. What matters is how accurate of an approximation you need. Also, are you interested in a mean sea level type measurement, or do you want the actual contours of the ground (for example if your polygon is put over a mountain, then the same exact size polygon is put over some plains, should the result you calculate be the same or different)?
Depending on how big your polygon is, and which measurement you're looking for, a 2D approximation can be pretty accurate (the smaller the polygon, the closer you'll get). Something to keep in mind, if you want your area in something like square feet, the distance between two longitudinal lines is not constant (63 deg west and 62 deg west are closer (in feet) somewhere in Alaska than they are at the equator). You might have to do a unit conversion to handle this depending on how big your polygon is (or if your polygon could be placed anywhere). If you can't do the 2D approximation, I'm not even sure how you'd do that.
When I did this, I did the 2D approx, and I had to do the unit conversion. If that's the way you go, I can try to dig up some of my old notes and the links I used to get you started.

Will treating MKCoordinateRegion like a rectangle come back to haunt me?

Background: I'm build a series of location-based apps that make heavy use of maps. These maps are annotated with locations fetched from a server, to which I pass regions of the map I need data for (defined as a lat/long and a latDelta/longDelta, much like MKCoordinateRegion, but with a different location of the reference coordinate). I'm writing a bunch of helper methods/classes to use when managing these regions. Compatibility with iOS 3.x is required (meaning MKMapRect is out).
Question: Am I setting myself up for failure by treating MKCoordinateRegions like rectangles? Specifically, I'm treating their geometry as if it was that of a rectangle, assuming they have basically the same properties as rectangles. I've implemented several methods that mirror CGRect's helper methods, such as MKCoordinateRegionUnion/Inset/Outset, etc, and they all pass my unit tests, but I'm starting to question if my underlying assumptions are correct. I know in fact that MKCoordinateRegion does not represent a geometric rectangle, but rather a region of a spherical surface bound by two sets of parallel planes, perpendicular to each other (bonus points if somebody can clue me in on a better term for that).
I'm not experiencing any anomalies yet, but since many apps will be reliant on my understanding of the geometry, I'd rather figure out now if I'm going down the wrong path. The fact that I slept through most of the classes in school dealing with 3d radial geometry doesn't give me much confidence that my intuition is correct.
If you are taking into account the equator, prime meridian and dateline edge cases, I think you will be ok.
Alternatively, you could develop your own MKMapRect like rects. Troy Brant has a great blog post about the how the rects are formed:
http://troybrant.net/blog/2010/01/mkmapview-and-zoom-levels-a-visual-guide/
While the blog post is mainly about zoom levels, all the information there can be used to build up your own map rect library.
As for areas bounded by great circles on the surface of a sphere, they are called spherical polygons. So I guess you could just call them spherical rectangles.

Resources